DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim interpretation – Formal Matters
1. A double patenting rejection is put forth – this is a Continuation application.
2. The examiner interprets that the claims are statutory under the requirements and guidelines as set forth in 35 USC 112. Written support is found and the claims particularly point out the inventive concept(s).
3. The examiner interprets that the claims are statutory under the requirements and guidelines as set forth in 35 USC 101 (ie. directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, no abstract idea, above judicial bar).
4. The examiner notes that the claims put forth a broad concept similar to Fingerprint databases which are well known and use parameters/measurements such as Cell-ID, Signal Parameters (RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, etc.) AOA for location determination and/or assistance (See PTO-892 references such as Siomina, SHU, Centonza, Behravan, Koutsimanis).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,852,740 in view of Edge US 2015/0350850 (EDGE #1) and Edge et al. US 2014/0235266 (EDGE #2).
Note that the both the parent (patent) and instant application (child) put forth the same concept of receiving signals from a BTS and forwarding information to a crowd-sourced database BUT they differ in relation to the parent measures signals and compares each to a “predetermined threshold” whereas the instant application forwards different information (i.e. AOA, Cell-ID, Beam width, Beam-ID).
Thusly, one skilled sees that the child merely changes the type of data that is being sent to the crowd-sourced database.
As per claims 1, 9, 17 and 23, these claims are rejected in their entirety as based on the teachings of 11,852,740 but are silent on
providing, to a crowdsourced beam relation database,
(1) the determined position of the UE,
(2) at least one of the determined beam width or the determined AoA for each of the plurality of radio beams, and
(3) the determined cell ID and the beam ID for each of the plurality of radio beams.
Edge US 2015/0350850 (EDGE #1) teaches sending most of the data to a crowd-sourced database while Edge et al. US 2014/0235266 (EDGE #2) teaches specifically sending Cell-ID (to a crowd-sourced database).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention's filing date, to modify 11,825,740, such tha it provides data to a crowd-sourced database (per above), to provide the ability for the crowd-sourced database to reflect all measurements from UE’s in the vicinity to keep said database up-to-date.
Note that all dependent claims from parent and this continuation are same/similar and thusly stand rejected under this double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 12-15, 17, 22-23 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. US 2014/0162704 and further in view of Edge US 2015/0350850 (EDGE #1) and Edge et al. US 2014/0235266 (EDGE #2).
As per claim 1, Choi et al. US 2014/0162704 teaches a method for supporting location services performed by a user equipment (UE) (See Abstract) comprising:
receiving a plurality of radio beams transmitted by a plurality of base stations (Figures 1-3 show a UE receiving multiple beams from multiple transmission points/base stations/access points);
determining at least one of a beam width or an angle-of-arrival (AoA) for each of the plurality of radio beams (Para #14 teaches receiving/determining an angle of a signal received from at least 3 base stations, which is interpreted as being an “angle of arrival” at the UE) ;
[0007] As for the network-based positioning, a Cell-ID positioning for identifying the position of a terminal by use of a Cell ID of a base station, an Enhanced Cell ID positioning having Cell ID information and distance information between a base station and a terminal added, an angle of arrival (AOA) positioning using the angle of a signal being received by three base stations,
determining a cell identifier (ID) and a beam ID for each of the plurality of radio beams (Para #7 teaches determining/receiving the Cell ID of a base station);
[0007] As for the network-based positioning, a Cell-ID positioning for identifying the position of a terminal by use of a Cell ID of a base station, an Enhanced Cell ID positioning having Cell ID information and distance information between a base station and a terminal…
determining a position of the UE (See Abstract and Para’s 5-7. Note that Para #112 teaches the UE can determine its own position and Figure 10 appears to teach (S1034) that the network determines the UE’s position – See Para #114); and
providing, to a database,
(1) the determined position of the UE (Para #69 teaches the UE can transmit its position to a network entity, e.g. a base station, database, location mapping service, etc.)
[0069] In the first method, the terminal may have MAP information to find out its own position as certain position information (information about designated position or coordinates), and transmits its own position to a base station (or an entity of a network other than a base station). ,
(2) at least one of the determined beam width or the determined AoA for each of the plurality of radio beams (See above passages teaching that AoA is determined), and
(3) the beam ID for each of the plurality of radio beams (Choi teaches sending at least First/Second BEAM information/ID to the network (Figure 10, S1030, left-side branch). Also see Para #16).
But is silent on
Providing (information), to a crowdsourced beam relation database,
providing Cell ID information (i.e. to the location database).
As seen above, Choi teaches a) receiving various signals from a base station and b) sending various information to the network/database. Furthermore, Choi (see Abstract) teaches “A method of determining a position of a terminal in a communication system using multiple beams is provided……receiving a first beam from a first point, receiving a second beam from a second point, and determining a position of the terminal by use of information about the first beam and information about the second beam……the position of the terminal is determined by use of the angle of a beam, and information about coordinates of departure of a beam and/or coordinates of final arrival of a beam…”.
Specifically missing from Choi is a) sending Cell ID to a database and b) the database is a crowd-sourced (beam relation) database.
With regard to “..providing (information), to a crowdsourced beam relation database...”, at least Edge US 2015/0350850 (EDGE #1) teaches using a crowd-sourced database to receive/store position/location information from multiple user devices:
[From Para #84] “..However, positioning characteristics associated with device type information (e.g. OEM and chipset IDs) may also be obtained by a location server from one or more mobile devices as a result of crowdsourcing..” AND “..A location server may also use any device IDs (e.g. OEM and chipset IDs) received in messages from mobile devices containing crowdsourced measurements to infer characteristics about the sending mobile devices—e.g. may use the crowdsourced measurements to locate the sending mobile devices and infer positioning characteristics related to the resulting locations and original measurements as exemplified in examples A, B, C and D of Table 1. The inferred positioning characteristics may be stored and used later to assist with positioning of other mobile devices of the same type. Alternatively or in addition, a location server may use known positioning characteristics for any mobile device that has sent crowdsourcing measurements to the location server together with its device IDs (e.g. OEM and chipset IDs) to adjust the received crowdsourcing measurements. For example, if a certain type of mobile device is known to report inaccurate RSSI values below −50 dBm, any received RSSI values below this level may be discarded. Similarly if a type of mobile device is known to include a fixed additional internal delay in RTT measurements for certain types of APs, a location server may subtract the known fixed additional internal delay from any received RTT values received as part of crowdsourcing before making use of the RTT values (e.g. to help compile BSA data). The known positioning characteristics of a mobile device may be obtained by previous positioning of the same type of mobile device (e.g. as described for blocks 340-370 of FIG. 3) and/or may be obtained from crowdsourcing measurements sent by the same type of mobile device as described above…”
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention's filing date, to modify Choi, such that it provides (information), to a crowdsourced beam relation database, to provide the ability for all UE-collected/measured data to be forwarded to a crowd-sourced entity for location-determination assistance.
With regard to “..providing Cell ID information (i.e. to the location database)..”, (a crowd-sourced database), at least Edge et al. US 2014/0235266 (EDGE #2) teaches a mobile device may provide Cell ID information to a crowd-sourced database:
[From Para #50] In another embodiment, a number of mobile devices 100 may provide data to a location server 240 (e.g., via crowdsourcing or when requested by location server 240 to provide measurements for the purpose of locating mobile device 100) that may include the identities (e.g., MAC addresses for WiFi APs or cell identities for Femtocells) of all the APs that mobile device 100 is able to currently detect (and/or may have detected at some common time in the past) and possibly the measured signal strength and/or signal quality (e.g., RSSI or S/N) for each detected AP.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention's filing date, to modify the combo, such that it provided Cell ID information (i.e. to the location database), to provide various parameters, e.g. AOA, beam ID, beam width, Cell-ID for location determination.
Examiner’s Note: For Cell-ID provided to a crowd-sourced database, see also
Fischer et al. US 2014/0171097 (para #118)
Teed-Gillen et al. US 2014/0274113 (para #36)
Both are pertinent but not cited.
As per claims 4, 12, 22 and 28, the combo teaches claim 1/9/17/24, wherein determining the position of the UE is based on measurements of signals received from a Global Navigation Satellite System, a cellular network, a WiFi network, a wireless personal area network (WPAN) network, sensor measurements, or any combination thereof (Choi teaches receiving information from at least multiple base stations and/or relays, see Figures 1-3 and 5-9).
As per claims 5 and 13, the combo teaches claim 1/9, wherein providing the cell ID and the beam ID associated with the position of the UE for each of the plurality of radio beams to the crowdsourced beam relation database comprises sending a report to a remote server (Edge #2 teaches sending information (i.e. a “report”) to a network/remote entity/server).
As per claims 6 and 14, the combo teaches claim 1/9, wherein receiving the plurality of radio beams transmitted by the plurality of base stations comprises:
receiving, via at least one wireless transceiver, the plurality of radio beams transmitted by the plurality of base stations (See Choi, figures 1-3 and 5-9 showing the UE receive wireless information from BTS’s/AP’s/Relays using a wireless transceiver).
As per claims 7 and 15, the combo teaches claim 1/9, wherein determining the beam width for each of the plurality of radio beams comprises:
determining a number of beams used by each base station in the plurality of base stations (Figure 10, #S1010 and #S1020 teach the UE determining a 1st beam from a 1st TP and a 2nd beam from a 2nd TP, which reads on determining a number of beams from each BTS).
As per claim 9, this claim is rejected in its entirety as based on the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, note that Choi teaches a user equipment (UE) configured for supporting location services comprising at least one wireless transceiver configured to wirelessly communicate with entities in a wireless network; at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one wireless transceiver and the at least one memory and configured to perform the steps of the claim (See at least Figure 1, #130)
As per claim 17, this claim is rejected in its entirety as based on the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, note that Choi teaches a method for supporting location services for user equipment (UE) performed by a server in a wireless network, comprising the steps of the claim (see at least Figures 10-11).
As per claim 23, this claim is rejected in its entirety as based on the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, note that Choi teaches a server configured for supporting location services for user equipment (UE) in a wireless network, comprising an external interface configured to communicate with a plurality of UEs in the wireless network; at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the external interface and the at least one memory and configured to perform the steps of the claim (see Figures 10-11 showing the software/code run on a server).
As per claim 27, the combo teaches claim 20, further comprising:
configuring each base station in a plurality of base stations to indicate to the UE a number of beams used by the base station (Choi teaches that the UE receives first/second beams from various BTS’s and will “transmit information about first beam and second beam to network” (Figure 10, S1030, left-sde branch), which reads on the number of beams used by the base station – i.e. see figures 1-3 and 5-9 showing unique Beam ID’s the UE receives from the BTS’s. There can be one or more number of beams reported/sent to each UE).
Claim(s) 2-3, 10-11, 18-19 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi/Edge#1/Edge#2 and further in view of {Axmon et al. US 2015/0304875 or Ando et al. US 2014/0004888}
As per claims 2, 10, 18 and 24, the combo teaches claim 1/9/17/23, but is silent on further comprising
determining one or more signal based parameters for each of the plurality of radio beams, and
providing the one or more signal based parameters with the cell ID and the beam ID associated with the position of the UE for each of the plurality of radio beams to the crowdsourced beam relation database.
Choi/Edge teach sending Cell ID and Beam ID information to the crowd-sourced database but not a signal “parameter” of the beams.
At least Axmon or Ando teach a UE reporting various signal parameter information to a BTS/network:
a) Axmon et al. US 2015/0304875 teaches a UE can report signal measurements of signals received from a BTS to the BTS/network database and that these signals can be used to determine the location of the mobile
[0134] In the context of FIG. 17, the mobility measurement reports from the wireless device 12 may comprise Reference signal received power (RSRP) and/or Reference signal received quality (RSRQ) measurements, and the network node 10 can use such measurements to determine the location of the wireless device 12, according to whatever parameterization is used by the database to express location, e.g., while location may be expressed in terms of geographic coordinates, it also may be expressed in terms of relative signal levels, etc. In any case, once the “fingerprint” of the device's current location is determined, the network node 10 can then use the associative linking or mapping information in the database to identify the SCells that are considered as being suitable for CA, for the wireless device 12. This suitability may be determined not only as a function of the signal arrival time differences, but also as a function of historic signal strength measurements.
b) Ando et al. US 2014/0004888 teaches a mobile device can report to a BTS/network the signal quality of a signal received from a BTS and this is stored along with its current location in a network database:
[0039] Additionally, the corresponding location of the channel quality database 212 may always be updated using the SINR value every time when the mobile terminal 102 reports. In this case, the value stored in the channel quality database 212 may be given a weight, and the stored value and the SINR value of the same locations (latitude and longitude) reported from the mobile terminal 102
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention's filing date, to modify the combo, such that determining one or more signal based parameters for each of the plurality of radio beams AND providing the one or more signal based parameters with the cell ID and the beam ID associated with the position of the UE for each of the plurality of radio beams to the crowdsourced beam relation database, to provide signal parameters/measurements to the location determination database.
As per claims 3, 11, 19 and 25, the combo teaches claim 2/9/18/24, but is silent on wherein the one or more signal based parameters for each of the plurality of radio beams comprises at least one of Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR), or a combination thereof.
Measuring and reporting of various received signal parameters is taught by at least Axmon or Ando. Axmon teaches measuring at least Reference signal received power (RSRP) and/or Reference signal received quality (RSRQ) (Para #134) while Ando teaches measuring at least SINR (Para #39).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention's filing date, to modify the combo, such that wherein the one or more signal based parameters for each of the plurality of radio beams comprises at least one of Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR), or a combination thereof, to provide specific parameters to the location determination database.
Claim(s) 6, 16, 20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi/Edge#1/Edge#2 and further in view of {Chiodini US 6,269,247 or Schaepperle et al. US 2021/0368470 }
As per claims 8, 16, 20 and 26, the combo teaches claims 1/9/17/24 but is silent on wherein a base station in the plurality of base stations with a higher number of beams indicates beams from the base station are narrower beams compared to the base station with a lower number of beams.
The examiner notes that a narrower beam provides a MORE precise location of the user since the width covers a smaller locastion. Thusly a beam covering one square mile is less precise than a narrower beam covering 10 square feet.
Further to this point are Chiodini or Schaepperle:
a) Chiodini US 6,269,247 teaches that a cell/BTS having more subdivisions (i.e. beams or sectors) provides a more precise location of the user, hence this cell/BTS would have a higher number of beams/sectors as compares to a cell with only an Omni antenna providing one beam/sector:
(19) Clearly the subdivision can be more refined (narrower angular sectors) to determine a more precise position of the mobile station. In other words, the greater the number of sectors the more precise the position of the mobile station.
b) Schaepperle et al. US 2021/0368470 teaches that 5G networks have very narrow beams and provide very precise positioning, hence these cells will have many beams covering an area versus a cell having one a few beams.
[0176] In a 5G network, multipoint precoding is envisaged. Furthermore, in very high frequency (fc>52 GHz) scenarios, the large densification of the network, the prevalence of line-of-sight channel and very narrow beams can lead to very precise position estimations.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention's filing date, to modify the combo, such that wherein a base station in the plurality of base stations with a higher number of beams indicates beams from the base station are narrower beams compared to the base station with a lower number of beams, to provide the ability to understand that base stations with narrow beams will have a higher number of beams (and very precise UE location) versus a base station with wide beams (which provides less precise UE location).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
This claim recites a highly detailed technical design that is not found in at least the prior art of record, either alone or in combination.
Claim 21: further comprising: configuring each base station in a plurality of base stations to indicate to the UE a number of beams used by the base station.
NOTE that Claim 21 is allowable since it requires an intervening claim (dependent claim 20).
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant's argument(s) filed on December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
The applicant argues that Edge #1 fails to teach or suggest "providing ... to a crowdsourced beam relation database," as expressly recited in claim 1. Although Edge #1 describes that "positioning characteristics associated with device type information (e.g., OEM and chipset IDs) may also be obtained by a location server from one or more mobile devices as a result of crowdsourcing...", the information being crowdsourced in Edge #1 is unrelated to beam relation. The applicant also argued that Edge#2 also fails to discloses such limitation.
In response. Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. First, One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The primary reference Choi teaches a UE receiving a plurality of radio beams from multiple base stations or access points (see Figs. 1-3, 5-9; [0051]-[0088]). Also, Choi discloses parameters of the beam including determining for each beam: The angle of the beam (AoA), the cell ID and beam ID, the width of the beam ([0013], [0014], [0066] [0093] and [0109]). Moreover, Choi further teaches the UE reporting information about received beams—including angles, IDs, and associated position—to a network entity, which may be a base station, location server, or database ([0069], [0071], [0114], [0115], Figs. 10-11). Thus, Choi discloses teach reporting beam and cell information, along with position, from multiple UEs to a central entity. The examiner agrees that Choi does not appear to explicitly discloses crowdsourced beam relation database. To support the shortcomings of Choi, Edge #1 and Edge #2 were introduced. Edge #1 ([0084]) discloses obtaining by a location server from one or more mobile devices as a result of crowdsourcing; and disclose A location server may also use any device IDs (e.g. OEM and chipset IDs) received in messages from mobile devices containing crowdsourced measurements to infer characteristics about the sending mobile devices—e.g. may use the crowdsourced measurements to locate the sending mobile devices and infer positioning characteristics. Further, Paragraph [0084] of Edge # 1 discloses “positioning characteristics associated with device type information (e.g., OEM and chipset IDs) may also be obtained by a location server from one or more mobile devices as a result of crowdsourcing … A location server may also use any device IDs … received in messages from mobile devices containing crowdsourced measurements to infer characteristics about the sending mobile devices—e.g. may use the crowdsourced measurements to locate the sending mobile devices and infer positioning characteristics related to the resulting locations and original measurements as exemplified in examples A, B, C and D of Table 1. In addition, Edge #2 Paragraph [0050] discloses “a number of mobile devices 100 may provide data to a location server 240 (e.g., via crowdsourcing … that may include the identities (e.g., MAC addresses for WiFi APs or cell identities for Femtocells) of all the APs that mobile device 100 is able to currently detect (and/or may have detected at some common time in the past) and possibly the measured signal strength and/or signal quality (e.g., RSSI or S/N) for each detected AP. Edge #2 further teaches that The server may use this feedback information to add an access point to a linked database, a grouped database or an associated database. For example, if a threshold number of mobile devices 100 tell a location server 240 that a particular access point 230 is visible but not listed in the assistance data, then that particular access point 230 may be added (e.g., a link may be added, the AP may be added to a group, or the AP may be associated with a particular macrocell) ([0050], [0078]), which shows that such crowdsourced data can be used for (relational) databases associating device position, AP/cell/beam identifiers, and measurement data. Thus, the combination of Choi, Edge #1 and Edge #1 meets the scope of the claimed limitation as currently presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED M KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3770. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights